Analysis of the Benefits of Deaf Faculty Classes for University Students and the Costs of Accommodation of Deaf Faculty Members: An International Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While many universities have developed disability services and research projects for disabled students, only a handful have extended such services and initiatives to disabled faculty members. This study aimed to identify university students’ evaluation of the benefits of deaf faculty classes. The study adopted an explanatory and exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, and participants included students who attended classes taught by the deaf and hard-of-hearing (D/HH) faculty members employed at mainstream universities. A total of 104 students in D/HH faculty classes at universities in Japan, the United States, Canada, Ghana, and Sweden participated in the surveys, and 19 students participated in the interviews. This study also interviewed 25 D/HH faculty members from universities in Japan, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, and Ghana. Fifty-seven D/HH faculty members from these countries as well as Australia, Finland, South Africa, and Belgium, participated in the surveys. The study analyzed students’ willingness to pay for classes taught by D/HH faculty members, and found that students’ total values were higher than the labor and accommodation costs of D/HH faculty members. As the evaluation included participants from various countries, the study also observed that the financial support system for accommodating D/HH faculty members in higher education varied among countries. This study demonstrated that students had higher expectations, especially regarding the development of disability services for faculty members with disabilities. The study also advocates recognizing the importance of expanding financial resources, establishing disability services, and training sign language interpreters.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".